Thursday, September 10, 2009

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

A tragic yet hilarious court proceeding took place in the Ipoh High Court on Sept 8 when the judge blatantly contradicted himself in dismissing a suit brought by Perak's Pakatan Rakyat speaker against the state's Barisan Nasional speaker (yes, two speakers in the Perak assembly).

Judge Azahar Mohamed rejected V Sivakumar's suit to seek damages from R Ganesan for assault and false imprisonment during the chaotic and violent state assembly sitting on May 7.

He said the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case due to Federal Constitution Article 72 stipulating that "the validity of any proceeding in any state assembly cannot be questioned in any court".

And yet in the same breath he declared that "the decision of the legislative assembly to remove the plaintiff as speaker and to appoint the defendant was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the state assembly on May 7, 2009."

Now, the crux of the entire contention between the two speakers is: Who is on the right side of law in the violent tussle for the speaker's chair on May 7?

By declaring Ganesan as the rightful speaker, Judge Azahar is in fact making a legal judgment. Is that not a breach of Article 72? How come he has no jurisdiction to hear Sivakumar's grievances but has jurisdiction to judge Ganesan as legal speaker?

Is that not a contradiction of the highest order?

Apart from this atrocious double standard applied by the judge, the main flaw of the judgment is the inability to differentiate between assembly proceeding and criminal behaviour.

What Sivakumar is seeking is redress for the unlawful physical violence inflicted on him. And Article 72 covers only businesses conducted in the assembly - not unlawful and criminal act.

Judge Azahar has therefore wrongly used Article 72 to come to his judgment. To make it very clear that this is the case, I will quote in full the relevant clauses in Article 72 (Clauses 1 & 2) and explain the reasons why.

* Clause 1: The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

* Clause 2: No body shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

Note the operative words "proceedings" in Clause 1 and "anything said or any vote given" in Clause 2. It is abundantly clear what Article 72 refers to are the speeches and resolutions made in the assembly, not any criminal or unlawful act.Tragedy and comedy

But what happened on May 7 was complete pandemonium and chaos in the assembly hall. There was no chance to conduct any business at all, least of all any resolution passed. In fact, the only business done on that day was the address by the Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah.

And how was Sivakumar "replaced" by Ganesan during that pandemonium?

While Sivakumar was sitting in the speaker's chair, hordes of police personnel entered the assembly hall, allegedly on Ganesan's order, and physically lifted, carried, dragged and moved speaker Sivakumar into a room where he was forcibly detained until the assembly sitting was over.

And as soon as Sivakumar was removed from the hall, police personnel escorted Ganesan into the hall and ushered him to the speakers chair, with police personnel making a line to stand guard in front of Ganesan to prevent any assemblymen from reaching the speaker's chair.

The entire tragedy-comedy was stage-managed by the police, and it is therefore more appropriate to say that while Sivakumar was elected by the assembly through a resolution, Ganesan was physically planted into the speaker's chair by the police. And that about sums up what happened on that tragic-hilarious day.

And since Judge Azahar appears to be so respectful of the constitutional principle of separation of power as demonstrated by his professed adherence to Article 72, is it not puzzling that he should have chosen to ignore completely the heinous violation of the doctrine of separation of power when hordes of police personnel invaded the assembly to physically replace one speaker with another?

Is it not another shining example of double standard in the Malaysia Boleh tradition?

After the series of judicial decisions that appear to wantonly trample the constitution and the law following the shameful power grab in Perak, the latest low represented by Azahar's decision makes us wonder how much lower our judiciary can sink into, as many more judicial decisions in the same series are still pending.

Friday, September 4, 2009

KUALA LUMPUR: The Election Commission (EC) acted beyond its powers and functions in not holding by-elections for three state seats in Perak, the High Court here was told Friday.

Counsel Datuk S. Ambiga said the EC's decision in holding that the state assembly seats of Behrang, Changkat Jering and Jelapang were not vacated as a result of the resignation of the three assemblymen, as determined by the then speaker of the state assembly V. Sivakumar, was illegal and irrational.

"The fourth respondent (the EC) had usurped the powers and right of the speaker (Sivakumar) to determine that a resignation had taken place," argued Ambiga before Justice Lau Bee Lan in her chambers.

Ambiga, former president of the Bar Council, was representing Sivakumar in his leave application for a judicial review to compel the EC to declare the three seats vacant and hold by-elections.

In his application, Sivakumar had named state assemblymen Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang), Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu (Changkat Jering) and Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang), and the EC as respondents.

Ambiga, in her submission, also contended that the EC, by its letter to Sivakumar dated Feb 5, 2009, had stated that it was unable to ascertain whether the three seats had been vacated and, therefore, could not call for by-elections.

"Having determined that it could not ascertain that a vacancy had occurred, the EC had contrarily made a decision that the three seats were still held by the first to third respondents," she said.

Sivakumar, 38, is seeking a court order to quash the EC's decision and to compel the EC to hold by-elections in the Behrang, Changkat Jering and Jelapang state constituencies.

He also wants the court to grant an injunction to stop Jamaluddin, Mohd Osman and Hee from acting as and carrying out the functions and duties of assemblymen of the respective state seats.

He is also seeking a writ of "quo warranto" to compel the trio to show under what basis or authority they still remained the elected representatives of their constituencies and carried out the responsibilities, functions and duties of an assemblyman.

"If such an ultimate act of religious insensitivity, insult and offence had been committed against Islam, Utusan Malaysia would have gone to town.

"Not only with full front-page coverage and denunciation, probably half the newspaper today would be devoted to it. Why the thundering silence?" he said in a statement.

In the past, Utusan Malaysia has come under fire numerous times for carrying articles with a racial slant.

The protest in Shah Alam yesterday was carried out by residents of Section 23 who were upset over the proposal to relocate a Hindu temple to their area.

Meanwhile, Lim said all patriotic Malaysians of goodwill and reason must condemn in the strongest possible terms the cow head sacrilege.

"In other multi-religious societies, such an ultimate act of religious insensitivity, insult and offence to one of the major religions in the country would have led to mayhem, riots and loss of lives.

"This bespeaks of the high degree of maturity, mutual tolerance, goodwill and co-existence that cool heads had prevailed in the response to such a deplorable act of sacrilege," he added.

Lim said in a multi-religious society, the act of sacrilege to one religion must be regarded as an act of sacrilege to all other religions and the entire nation.

He added that the incident should serve as an overarching consensus of all political parties, mass media, NGOs and Malaysians if we cherish and love this nation.

Police rapped for slow response

The DAP leader also commended Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak for his quick response in ordering the Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan to take swift action against those responsible.

"But why was the police so slow in its response to such a public act of religious sacrilege, when tardiness in dealing with 'national security threats' had never been a weakness of the Royal Malaysian Police Force?

"Police intelligence cannot be so obsolete that it is not aware of the act of sacrilege being planned and executed, when the organisers had taken pains to ensure that their protest would get the maximum mass media coverage – reported, photographed and videoed," he said.

With two days to go before Aug 31, Lim said: "The sacrilege must serve as an ominous warning that Najib's first national day celebration as prime minister will go down as a 'Black National Day' if the genie of racism and religious chicanery are allowed to get out of the bottle."

"In plural Malaysia there is not just one genie but many genies threatening to tear apart the multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-lingual and multi-cultural fabric of Malaysia," he added.

Some 50 residents enraged with the proposed relocation of a Hindu temple to their area staged a noisy protest with a severed cow's head this afternoon.

The residents - from Section 23 in Shah Alam - who gathered after the Friday prayers, placed the head outside the gates of the state secretariat building for a short period before removing it.

"Where is Xavier? This head is for him," shouted one of the protesters in reference to Selangor executive councillor Dr Xavier Jeyakumar.

Jeyakumar is one of those in charge of non-Muslim affairs in the state.

Earlier, the protesters had marched some 300m from the state mosque to the state secretariat building.

The protesters also condemned Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim, exco member Rodziah Ismail (as the area falls under her state constituency) and Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad.

Before dispersing, several protesters spat and stomped on the cow's head. The cow is considered sacred among Hindus.

Addressing the crowd, Section 23 action committee deputy chair Ibrahim Sabri said: "If there is blood, you (the state government) will be responsible if you are adamant about building the temple."

"This is a warning. Relocate the temple to Section 22. This cow is a present to the state government. This is a gift from us," he added.

The protesters also carried several banners which among others read 'Take Beer' (mocking PAS' rallying cry of 'Takbir') and 'Illegal temples are very small, but once relocated, they are as big as Putrajaya'.

The crowd gathered for about 15 minutes at the main entrance of the state secretariat building under the watch of more than a dozen police personnel.

'We'll not budge an inch'

Speaking to reporters later, Action Committee chair Mahyuddin Manaf warned that the state government must give in or the residents would retaliate.

"We will not budge one inch, even if lives are lost or blood is made to flow. We will still defend Section 23 from having a temple built there," he said.

He added that a protest memorandum was forwarded to the state government two months ago but there has been no response.

Contacted later, Mahyuddin distanced his organisation from the act of bringing the cow head to the protest.

"It is not our intention. We were surprised," he said, denying that the act was intended to insult Hindus.

He said that the cow head was likely brought by angry residents.

"Maybe, they meant it (as a symbol of) stupidity. In Malay culture, the cow is a symbol of stupidity, or leaders that are stupid," he said.

On Aug 11, the state government announced that the relocation of the temple from Section 19 to Section 23 was final and will be situated 200m from the nearest house and 400m from a surau.

The temple will face an industrial lot and will be separated from the houses by a playground and a multi-purpose hall.

However, some residents felt that it was not appropriate to build a temple in a Muslim-majority area.

The Pakatan Rakyat state government accused rivals Umno of instigating the crowd to protest the relocation.

Jeyakumar to lodge police report

In an immediate reaction, a furious Jeyakumar described the protest as "unwarranted, unacceptable and without sensitivity towards other religions."

He also said that he will lodge a police report on the matter soon.

"These people should have ethics. They are inciting racial and religious hatred. I am going to lodge a police report against these people," he told Malaysiakini.

He also expressed disappointment towards the police personnel at the scene for not taking any action against the protesters.

"The police didn't stop anybody. The police should have arrested them and charged them for inciting hatred," he said, adding that he could tolerate with "ethical" demonstrations.

Jeyakumar is slated to meet Selangor police chief Khalid Abu Bakar and other police officers over the matter tomorrow.

Friday, August 28, 2009

MACC should produce proof that Teoh Beng Hock had received RM112 “kickback” or it should withdraw and apologise for the allegation defaming the dead

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) bias and prejudice towards DAP and Pakatan rakyat must be deplored in the strongest possible terms.

The most recent evidence of such bias and prejudice was evident from the testimony of MACC investigator DSP Mohd Anuar Ismail at the Teoh Beng Hock inquest yesterday.

Although the coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas had ordered Anuar’s unfair and prejudicial testimony yesterday to be expunged, the damage had been done.

The Star online for instance carried the report with the heading “Officer claims Teoh was on the take” which is still accessible just minutes ago. The Sun headline today is: ”Testimony on alleged kickbacks expunged”.

Yes, the details of Anuar’s allegations have been alleged but the allegation proper remains, viz: Teoh was corrupt and guilty of “kickbacks”!

In alleging that Beng Hock was “on the take” and had received “kickbacks” MACC had not only defamed the dead but posthumously elevated Teoh’s role from being a witness to a suspect or even a person accused of corruption!

And what is the amount of this corruption money which Teoh is alleged to have received as kickback? An incredible and ridiculous sum of RM112!

MACC is not interested in the RM24 million Istana Khir Toyo or RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandals, but for an alleged RM112 “kickback”, MACC officers are prepared to work through the night and go without sleep.

No wonder public confidence in the efficiency, independence, integrity and professionalism of the MACC is plumbing new depths!

Has the MACC any incontrovertible evidence that Beng Hock was corrupt, being “on the take” and had received RM112 “kickback”?

If so, I challenge MACC to produce them, and if not, MACC should withdraw the RM112 allegation and publicly apologise for defaming the dead, and Anuar should be suspended from office immediately.

Anuar is not interested in helping to find out the truth about the causes and circumstances of Teoh’s mysterious death at the MACC headquarters on July 16 but to add one smear after another defamation on Teoh and Pakatan Rakyat in the MACC war against Pakatan Rakyat, betraying MACC’s statutory objective which was to declare war on corruption!

This is why Malaysians want a Royal Commission of Inquiry as they have so little confidence in an inquest to uncover the actual causes and circumstances of Teoh’s mysterious death at the MACC headquarters.

It is also clear from Anuar’s expunged testimony that the materials he depended upon are very similar to those which appeared on the black blog, http://t4tbh.blogspot.com/, which carried postings of lies and falsehoods about MACC investigations and Teoh’s death, all with one purpose to accuse someone from DAP as having murdered Teoh.

I call on the MACC Chief Commissioner, Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan to clarify whether MACC has ventured into the blogosphere in its war against Pakatan Rakyat and state categorically whether MACC has anything to do with this black blog of lies and falsehoods, whether!

If he does not know, has he caused a full investigation to be conducted whether MACC officers are implicated in this black blog?

Today’s press reported the statement by the Selangor Chief Police Officer Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar that the molotov cocktail attack on a MACC vehicle in Klang last week was not related to Teoh’s death.

Last Thursday, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz was very quick in making the insinuation that someone from DAP was implicated in the Molotov cocktail attack, saying that it gave some basis to the allegation by Wangsa Maju MP Wee Choo Keong that some DAP representatives had links to the underworld.

With the statement by Selangor CPO, Nazri should withdraw and apologise for his uncalled-for insinuation against the DAP for being implicated in the Molotov attack on the MACC vehicle in Klang.

At the Parliament 1

At the Parliament 2

April 29, 2008 : Kuala Lumpur Malaysian opposition leaders, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (L) and her daughter Nurul Izzah Anwar, arrive for the swearing-in ceremony for the members of parliament at the parliament house in Kuala Lumpur April 28, 2008.

At the Parliament 3

New MPs Jeff Ooi and Tony Pua are famous for their blogs and both are committed to blogging while they are seated in the Dewan Rakyat

Keris wielding at the UMNO assembly

Hishamuddin has since apologized to Malaysians

Anwar - I am back - April 14, 2008

I’m back: Today is the last day of the five-year ban prohibiting Anwar from electoral politics.

Anwar and Wan Azizah

Polling Days : Penang Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah, PKR's candidate with husband Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia's opposition National Justice Party de facto leader, casts his ballot at a polling station in Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tun Hussein Onn, Bukit Mertajam in the northern Malaysian state of Penang March 8, 2008. Malaysia votes in a general election on Saturday, with the ruling coalition considered certain to retain power but the prime minister's leadership hanging in the balance